Information Needed Included Question & Answer Guide (With Explanation)

Understanding this question requires applying core subject principles.

What This Question Is About

This question relates to information needed included and requires a structured academic response.

How to Approach This Question

Break the problem into smaller parts and analyze each logically.

Key Explanation

This topic involves information needed included. A strong answer should include explanation, application, and examples.

Original Question

all information needed is included below Have you ever wondered what makes one person become addicted to a substance while others, who use the same substance, do not? Every person has risk and protective factors that influence their thoughts, feelings, behavior, and physiology. These factors interact with genetics, internal traits, and social and environmental influences (Social Determinants of Health (Links to an external site.)) to make it more or less likely that someone will become addicted. below is the website https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health Instructions: Respond to each of the following prompts. Responses to each prompt must be substantive (1-2 detailed paragraphs each).. This article by Stone, Becker, Huber, & Catalano (2012) may help you get started. article reference at end of question Explain how useful (or not) static factors and dynamic factors can be from a treatment perspective. You are a school counselor or nurse. Research ways you could implement strategies, programs, or interventions at your school that would promote dynamic protective factors for your students. Describe: 1) the protective factor you will target, 2) the intervention and how you would implement it, 3) and what outcome you expect. You are an addiction counselor in a probation office. Research ways you could implement strategies or interventions for your caseload that could help mitigate dynamic risk factors for substance use among your probationers. Describe: 1) the risk factor you will target, 2) the intervention and how you would implement it, 3) and what outcome you expect. article reference below: This review examines the evidence for longitudinal predictors of substance use and abuse in emerging adulthood. Nationally representative data from the 2007 National Survey on Drug use and Health suggest that many substance use problems reach their peak prevalence during emerging adulthood (usually defined as the period from age 18 to age 26). This stage of development is characterized by rapid transitions into new social contexts that involve greater freedom and less social control than experienced during adolescence. Concurrent with this newfound independence is an increase in rates of substance use and abuse. Understanding the risk and protective factors associated with emerging adult substance use problems is an important step in developing interventions targeting those problems. While multiple reviews have examined risk and protective factors for substance use during adolescence, and many of these earlier predictors may predict emerging adult substance use, few studies have focused primarily on the emerging adult outcomes examining predictors from both adolescence and emerging adulthood. This review used the databases PubMed and PsycInfo to identify articles pertaining to longitudinal predictors of substance use problems in emerging adulthood, building from the conceptual framework presented in a review on risk and protective factors for adolescent substance abuse by Hawkins and colleagues (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992). Predictors identified as predictors of substance use in adolescence, sometimes decreased in strength and in one case reversed direction. Unique predictors in emerging adulthood were also identified. Implications for prevention science during adolescence and emerging adulthood are discussed as well as suggestions for future research Introduction Prevention science is built on the premise that negative health outcomes can be prevented by reducing risk and enhancing promotive or protective factors in individuals and their environments during the course of development (Coie et al., 1993; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994; O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009). Over the last 2 decades, the field of adolescent substance abuse prevention has grown dramatically through the identification of longitudinal precursors that predict an increased likelihood of problems (risk factors), those that mediate or moderate exposure to risk (protective factors) (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992), or directly have an impact on decreasing the likelihood of problems (promotive factors, Sameroff, 2000). The term “protective factors” will be used in this article to refer to factors that decrease the risk of substance misuse (promotive and protective). During the adolescent years, many youth experiment with drugs. For instance, 2011 data from the Monitoring the Future study report that one fifth (20%) of 8th graders, and approximately 38% of 10th graders have tried an illicit drug. That number rises to 50% by 12th grade (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011). Prospective longitudinal studies demonstrate that there are a variety of risk and protective factors for adolescent substance abuse (Beato-Fernandez, Rodriguez-Cano, Belmonte-Llario, & Pelayo-Delgado, 2005; Belcher & Shinitzky, 1998; Beyers, Toumbourou, Catalano, Arthur, & Hawkins, 2004; Branstrom, Sjostrom, & Andreasson, 2008; Challier, Chau, Predine, Choquet, & Legras, 2000; Costa, Jessor, & Turbin, 1999; Donovan 2004; Hawkins, Arthur, & Catalano, 1995; Hawkins et al., 1992; Kandel, Davies, Karus, & Yamaguchi, 1986; Kliewer & Murrelle, 2007; Labouvie & McGee, 1986; Newcomb & Felix-Ortiz, 1992; Oman et al., 2004; Ostaszewski & Zimmerman, 2006; Thompson & Auslander, 2007; White, Pandina, & LaGrange, 1987). Over the past two plus decades this information has been useful to the design and testing of a number of substance use prevention programs. As a result, there is now a growing evidence base of tested, effective prevention programs and policies to address risk and protection across childhood and adolescence. 1.1. Why is a review of risk and protective factors needed for emerging adulthood? The trajectories of lifetime prevalence of substance use and misuse peak in young adulthood, to 49% among 19- and 20-year-olds and 72% by age 27 (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2009; SAMHSA Office of Applied Studies, 2009). Data from the Monitoring the Future study indicates that problem levels of alcohol use—daily use, binge drinking, and daily drunkenness—are highest during young adulthood (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2008). Among young adults, substance use has been linked to deaths, injuries, and among college students, academic problems, fighting, and sexual behavior problems. Using a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of college students from a sample of 119 public and private colleges, Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, and Lee (2000) found that frequent binge drinkers were over eight times more likely to get hurt or injured than non-binge drinkers, 17 more times more likely to have missed classes, seven times more likely to have engaged in unplanned sexual activity, and 8 times more likely to have gotten into trouble with campus or local police (Wechsler et al., 2000). Beyond injury, substance use is also associated with mortality among young adults. A recent study examining death rates revealed three quarters of all deaths among 20- to 24-year-olds are the result of that injuries. Poisoning was the third leading cause of injury-related death, behind motor vehicle/traffic-related deaths, and firearm-related deaths, all three of which are often substance involved. For example, of the deaths due to poisoning, the percent attributed to unintentional drugrelated poisoning has increased from 59% in 1999 to 76% in 2005 (Fingerhut & Anderson, 2008). Not only is emerging adulthood (usually defined as the period from age 18 to age 26) an important developmental period characterized by peak prevalence of substance use problems and problems related to use, it also sets the stage for later adult development (Arnett, 2005; George, 1993; Hogan & Astone, 1986; Shanahan, 2000). Many researchers (e.g., Osgood, Foster, Flanagan, & Ruth, 2004; Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002; Schulenberg, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 2004; Shanahan, 2000) have identified this stage as a key developmental time period characterized by rapid transitions in social context, contexts that involve greater freedom and less social control than experienced during adolescence. Thus while some of the predictors of adolescent substance use will no doubt still influence emerging adult substance use, the changes in context, experience of greater freedom and less social control during emerging adulthood will undoubtedly become important new predictors of substance use and abuse. By the end of this period many young people begin to accomplish the developmental tasks of emerging adulthood and assume adult roles and responsibilities, including the establishment of strong relationships, marriage and family responsibilities, completion of school, beginning of career employment, and financial responsibility. Successful transition into adult roles is associated with decreasing drug use, and decreasing criminal and antisocial behavior (Schulenberg et al., 2004). However, for some, failing to achieve the developmental tasks of this period is associated with continuing risky sexual activity, acute as well as increasing drug use characterized by misuse, abuse, and dependence, financial instability, failure to establish meaningful relationships, and deteriorating mental health. Successful assumption of adult roles can have long-term implications for positive life trajectories, health, and wellbeing, making understanding of the adolescent and emerging adult predictors of emerging adult substance use and problems an important undertaking in understanding etiology as well as the development of preventive interventions. Understanding both earlier predictors, as well as emerging adult predictors, will assist in the development of substance abuse prevention programs by increasing our understanding of why some substance abuse prevention programs begun prior to age 18 have had long term effects into young adulthood (e.g., Mason et al., 2009), while others that intend to impact those under 18 as well as those over 18 have only affected those over 18 (e.g., Wagenaar et al., 2000). Further, understanding of the predictors of emerging adult substance use may provide new targets for preventive intervention (Mason et al., 2009). Finally, there is a growing body of longitudinal research that follows children and adolescents into emerging adulthood as well as longitudinal studies during emerging adulthood. In the early 1990s, Hawkins et al. (1992) conducted a comprehensive review of studies that examined risk and protective factors associated with adolescent substance use. Since that time, much research has focused on the young adult developmental period, providing new information on risk and protective factors associated with problem substance use. The journal Addiction (2008: 103 [suppl.1]) recently devoted a supplement to basic research examining adolescent predictors of adult alcohol use. In addition, several reviews have summarized correlates of college student drinking and intervention effectiveness within the college attending population (Baer, 2002; Borsari & Carey, 1999; Brady & Sonne, 1999; Carey, Scott-Sheldon, Carey, & DeMartini, 2007; DeJong, 2002; Ham & Hope, 2003; Hingson & Howland, 2002; Hunter Fager & Mazurek Melnyk, 2004; Larimer & Cronce, 2002; Martens, Dams-O’Connor, & Beck, 2006; Neighbors et al., 2007; Presley, Meilman, & Leichliter, 2002; Toomey, Lenk, & Wagenaar, 2007; Walters & Neighbors, 2005). While this is impressive, the majority of young adults are not college students (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (NCES) 2007). Finally, as noted by Baer (2002), many studies examining risk factors associated with young adult outcomes are cross-sectional, limiting our ability to distinguish causal order. 2. Methods This paper reviews the literature related to risk and protective factors that are specific to young adult alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use and problems, and discusses the utility of analyzing individual risk factors versus risk pathways that address the interplay between multiple factors in influencing outcomes. Our discussion is guided by the MacArthur approach to examining moderators and mediators (Kraemer, Kazdin, Offord, & Kessler, 1997; Kraemer, Kiernan, Essex, & Kupfer, 2008; Kraemer, Stice, Kazdin, Offord, & Kupfer, 2001). Kraemer et al. (2001) advocate for the classification of risk and protective factors into those that are fixed and those that are variable, and emphasize the benefits of examining factors in relation to dichotomized outcomes. When evaluating risk factors, binary outcomes are beneficial because they allow researchers to “evaluate potency in a way that most clearly establishes clinical and policy significance” (Kraemer et al., 2008, page 854). As such, this review will highlight the potency of risk factors in relation to outcomes via reporting on potency when effect sizes (odds ratios (OR)) have been reported. Literature for this review was identified through PubMed and PsycInfo databases, as well as by searching dissertation abstracts for the past 10 years. Database searches included a variety of combinations of the terms: young adult, emerging adult, college, alcohol, tobacco, nicotine, marijuana, cannabis, drug, substance, risk, abuse, and dependence. When highly relevant articles were identified, the “related articles” links were also explored to further expand our search. Articles were considered for inclusion in this review if they met the following criteria: a) published prior to September 2010, b) included a substance use outcome during the young adult years, defined as between the ages of 18 to 26, c) included a longitudinal study design assessing at least one predictor of young adult substance use outcomes (an exception was made for several cross-sectional articles to address fixed/ contextual factors), d) were not articles designed solely to assess intervention or treatment outcomes, e) were not studies designed solely for the purpose of assessing measurement scale/tool formation, and f) were not articles that solely assessed prevalence/incidence of substance use or trajectories without assessment of possible predictors of young adult outcomes. After applying these criteria, the resulting pool of literature specific to predictors of young adult substance involvement consisted of 114 peer-reviewed research articles. In this article young adulthood is defined to include individuals between the ages of 18 and 26 because this grouping encompasses conventions used by nationally recognized data sources such as the 18- to 25-year-old grouping used by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (SAMHSA Office of Applied Studies, 2008), while expanding slightly to encompass other notable longitudinal studies of young adult substance use (Brook, Balka, Ning, & Brook, 2007; Casswell, Pledger, & Hooper, 2003; Jackson, Sher, &Wood, 2000; Zhou, King, & Chassin, 2006). This review will be organized into fixed markers of risk (i.e., factors that cannot demonstrate change), and variable risk/protective factors (those that may be manipulated through intervention). Consistent with Hawkins et al.’s (1992) review of risk and protective factors, the variable factors will further be divided into two sections: contextual and interpersonal factors. Contextual factors refer to “broad societal and cultural” factors, while individual factors “lie within individuals and their interpersonal environments” (Hawkins et al., 1992, p. 65). 3. Results 3.1. Fixed markers of risk Table 1 provides information on the studies that include fixed marker of risk for young adult substance use. 3.1.1. Gender During young adulthood, males are more likely than females to experience substance use and substance use problems (Brook, Kessler, & Cohen, 1999; Flory, Milich, Lynam, Leukefeld, & Clayton, 2003; Jackson, Sher, Gotham, & Wood, 2001; Maggs, Frome, Eccles, & Barber, 1997; Poikolainen, Tuulio-Henriksson, Aalto-Setala, Marttunen, & Lonnqvist, 2001). According to research by Brook et al. (1999), boys were 1.4 times more likely than girls to initiate marijuana use by young adulthood. Men are also more likely to transition into heavy use (Hussong & Chassin, 2004), and develop substance abuse/ dependence (Chassin, Pitts, & Prost, 2002; Hicks et al., 2007; King & Chassin, 2007; Steinhausen, Eschmann, Heimgartner, & Metzke, 2008). Poikolainen and colleagues (Hussong & Chassin, 2004), suggested that male gender increased the odds of young adult heavy alcohol intake by nearly six times over females (OR 5.9, 95% CI 4.1, 8.6), and King and Chassin (2007) found a threefold increase risk of alcohol dependence for young adult men when compared to women (OR 3.03, pb0.001). 3.1.2. Race/ethnicity A number of studies support an association between race/ethnicity and young adult substance use outcomes. One of the most commonly observed associations is an increased risk of alcohol use or problem use among White young adults (Arria et al., 2008; Gil et al., 2004; McMorris & Uggen, 2000; Merline, Jager, & Schulenberg, 2008; Scribner et al., 2008). In addition to finding increased risk for Caucasians, Gil, Wagner, and Tubman (2004) also found increased risk of experiencing a variety of substance use disorders in young adulthood for other race/ethnicity groups, particularly if they transitioned from abstaining in early adolescence to regular use in young adulthood. For example, while Non-Hispanic Whites were 4.3 times more to experience any substance use disorder if they transitioned from abstaining in early adolescence to regular use in young adulthood (in comparison to abstainers at both time points) (95% CI: 2.0, 9.3), African American respondents experience 6.6 times increased risk (95% CI: 2.5, 17.5), and Hispanics experienced 2.8 times increased risk (95% CI: 1.2, 6.5) (Gil et al., 2004). The association between variable risk factors and young adult substance use outcomes may also be moderated by race ethnicity. For example, grade 6-7 psychosocial factors (related to well-being and affect) may be more associated with age 21 alcohol dependence among African Americans (OR 3.8, pb0.001) than among European Americans (OR 1.0, p not statistically significant) (Chassin, Fora, & King, 2004; Gil, Vega, & Turner, 2002). Further, Gil et al. (2002) provided evidence that drug models during the 8-9th grade was more predictive of marijuana use disorder among European Americans (OR 2.1, pb0.001), than among African Americans (OR 1.3, p not statistically significant). 3.1.3. Biological indicators P300 Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) are a biological marker that has been linked to a history of familial alcoholism, and may serve as a predictor of drinking problems for high-risk adolescents and young adults (Courtney & Polich, 2009; Hill, Shen, Lowers, & Locke, 2000). ERPs indicate cognitive reaction time in response to auditory or visual stimulus, and a low ERP is generally indicative of increased risk (Hill et al., 2000). In comparison to young adults who had P300 scores above the median at age 9, those with scores below the median experienced nearly 3 times the risk of developing a substance use disorder by age 23 (OR 2.8, 95% CI: .99, 7.87) (Hill, Steinhauer, LockeWellman, & Ulrich, 2009). Further, when adolescent postural sway, an additional risk marker, was included in the model, those with low childhood P300 scores experienced 8 times the risk of developing a young adult substance use disorder (OR 8.08, 95% CI: 1.52, 42.8) (Hill et al., 2009). However Habeych, Charles, Sclabassi, Kirisci, and Tarter (2005) found that while low P300 auditory ERPs at age 10-12 years were predictive of age 19 substance use disorder, the association was mediated by childhood neurobehavioral disinhibition (ND; incorporated emotion, behavior, and cognition), with associations between ERPs and substance use disorders being more pronounced for those with more severe ND. Substance dependence has been associated with a number of genetic variations (Kreek, Nielsen, Butelman, & LaForge, 2005). While a number of genetic factors affecting the dopaminergic, serotonergic, gabaergic and other alleles have been implicated, a single allele variation has not been identified to account for individual variation in the risk of substance dependence. However research does support a genetic vulnerability for substance dependence among young adults. Malone, Taylor, Marmorstein, McGue, and Iacono (2004) presented findings from a study that assessed genetic influence on alcohol dependence in a sample of young adult twins. They found that the “specific genetic variance in alcohol dependence symptoms” between ages 17 and 24 remained constant, and there may be shared genetic vulnerability between alcohol dependence and adult antisocial behaviors (Malone et al., 2004). Genetic risk may also interact with other behavioral and social risk factors in imparting risk for young adult substance use. Research by Schmid et al. (2009) suggested that early heavy (or early regular) alcohol use moderated the path between the DAT1 gene and the development of young adult alcohol abuse. There are likely many such interactions between genetics and social risk factors that explain increased risk of developing substance use disorders in young adulthood. 3.1.4. Prenatal and postnatal indicators Exposure to alcohol and other drugs during pregnancy has been studied extensively in relation to developmental outcomes such as Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. Although there was much attention and concern in the late 1980s and early 1990s regarding the epidemic of “crack babies,” research has failed to support a robust association between maternal use of cocaine or crack cocaine and developmental problems for children after controlling for other potentially contributing factors (for reviews, see Frank, Augustyn, Grant Knight, Pell, & Zuckerman, 2001; Richardson, Day, & McGauhey, 1993). However, negative young adult substance use outcomes have been reported in relation to parents’ use of alcohol and tobacco during pregnancy (Alati et al., 2006; Baer, Sampson, Barr, Connor, & Streissguth, 2003). Prenatal alcohol exposure, particularly if experienced early during pregnancy, has been associated with a 3 fold increased risk of alcohol problems/ disorders at age 21 (95% CI: 1.62, 5.36) (Alati et al., 2006; Baer et al., 2003), and young adults whose mothers smoked regularly during pregnancy were more likely to be regular smokers at age 21 (OR range: 1.7- 2.5) (Al Mamun et al., 2006). Other researchers have focused on postnatal infant health and maternal activities in relation to young adult substance use. Using a 74-item scale designed by Touwen et al. (1980) to examine the association between general obstetric neurological optimality and the use of substances during young adulthood, Batstra, Hadders-Algra, Ormel, and Neeleman (2004) found evidence that experiencing a poor prenatal neurological optimality was predictive of substance use during young adulthood. Length of maternal breastfeeding has also been studied in relation to young adult substance use outcomes. Research by Alati, Van Dooren, Najman, Williams, and Clavarino (2009) focused on young adult alcohol use disorders in relation to two methods of breastfeeding: feeding on demand, or weaning after two weeks followed by breastfeeding only at regular intervals. Membership in the early weaning group was associated with 1.7 times greater risk of developing an alcohol use disorder by age 21, even after controlling for child intelligence and developmental disorders (Alati et al., 2009). 3.1.5. Income/socioeconomic status (SES) Associations between low income and problem behaviors are robust, but evidence specific to substance use in young adulthood is less clear (Hawkins et al., 1992). Buu et al.’s (2009) longitudinal 754 A.L. Stone et al. / Addictive Behaviors 37 (2012) 747-775 research suggests that low SES during childhood may increase the risk of nicotine and marijuana disorder during the young adult years. On the other hand, longitudinal studies of community samples in the United States and abroad suggest that higher income is associated with higher young adult drinking frequency (Casswell et al., 2003; McMorris & Uggen, 2000). It may be that income is related to use in a curvilinear pattern, with poverty and higher income associated with higher use and middle income associated with comparatively lower use. Although numerous authors have reported the link between low SES and ATOD use in youth (Brook, Brook, Gordon, Whiteman, & Cohen, 1990; Hawkins et al., 1992), further research is needed to disentangle the relationship between SES and substance use in young adulthood. 3.1.6. Parental education Research pertaining to associations between parental education and substance use by their offspring during the young adult years is mixed. According to research by Jackson et al. (2000), young adults in a low drinking/chronic smoking trajectory, compared to young adults in a low on both substances trajectory, were more likely to have parents with low education (OR 0.7), whereas young adults in the chronic drinking/low smoking trajectory were more likely to have higher parent education (OR 1.2). Maggs et al. (1997) suggested that young adults whose mothers achieved higher levels of education were more likely to use drugs and alcohol, and Merline et al. (2008) found a positive association between parental education and age 22 heavy drinking. Further longitudinal research is required to better understand the role of parental education on substance use in young adulthood and whether there may be different relationships for different substances. 3.1.7. Parental marital status Research assessing the association between parental marital status and substance use during the young adult years has been mixed. Hope, Power, and Rodgers (1998) suggested that the association between experiencing a parental divorce and using alcohol was weak for young adults (age 23), but was significant later in adulthood (age 33). Hayatbakhsh et al. (2006) found that children whose mothers were in a de facto relationship rather than married at age 5 were 1.5 times more likely to have used cannabis by young adulthood, and offspring who experienced three or more changes in maternal marital status between the ages of 5 and 14 were at 3.5 times more likely to have used cannabis by age 21 than those whose mother’s marital status remained stable. 3.1.8. Family substance use history There is substantial evidence that individuals who are children of alcoholics are at an increased risk of heavy alcohol use, binge drinking (Chassin et al., 2002, 2004), or having an alcohol use disorder during their young adult years (Alati et al., 2005; King & Chassin, 2007). Using data from a study of children of alcoholics, Chassin et al. (2004) found that children of alcoholics were over two times more likely to be in the “heavy drinking/heavy drug use” trajectory from adolescence into young adulthood than in the “moderate drinking/ experimental drug use” group (OR 2.24, pb0.01), and three times more likely to be in the heavy use trajectory than the “light drinking/ rare drug use” group (OR 3.1, pb0.01). Focusing on the outcome of alcohol abuse and dependence rather than trajectory groups, Alati et al. (2005) found a twofold risk of a young adult alcohol use disorder when comparing individuals whose moms drank daily when the child was 14, compared to those whose moms were abstainers (OR 1.8 and 1.9 for women and men respectively). King and Chassin (2007) likewise found that parent alcoholism increased the risk of young adult alcohol dependence nearly twofold (OR 1.9, pb0.05). Maternal tobacco smoking, alcohol use, and illegal drug use have also been linked to young adult marijuana and other illegal drug use disorders (Buu et al., 2009; Hayatbakhsh et al., 2006, 2007; Maalouf, 2010; Mezzich et al., 2007). Hayatbakhsh et al. (2007) found evidence that maternal cigarette smoking when the child was age 5 and/or age 14, increased the risk of young adult occasional marijuana use (OR range 1.3-1.6) and if the mother smoked when the child was at ages 5 and 14, the child was at 1.7 times the risk of begin classified as a young adult frequent marijuana user (95% CI: 1.3, 2.3). The association between maternal drinking and young adult marijuana use was only statistically significant when assessing maternal drinking when the child was at age 14 (OR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0-1.9 for young adult occasional marijuana use, and OR 1.5, 95% CI: 1.0, 2.3 for frequent marijuana use) (Hayatbakhsh et al., 2007). The association between parental and young adult substance use may be compounded if both parents experience substance use disorders and the young adult experiences both early substance use as well as neurobehavioral disinhibition (Clark, Cornelius, Kirisci, & Tarter, 2005). While the association between parent substance use and subsequent substance use by their offspring during the young adult years is robust, recent research emphasizes the importance of examining potential mediators of this relationship. For example, the relationship between parent alcoholism and subsequent offspring alcohol problems may be mediated by other child variables such as sensation seeking (Early, 2005) or adolescent alcohol expectancies (Handley & Chassin, 2009). Further, Maalouf (2010) provides support for the meditational role of parenting practices when examining the path from maternal marijuana use to offspring marijuana initiation. Siblings of young adults may also play a role in influencing young adult alcohol use behaviors. Trim, Leuthe, and Chassin (2006) found that alcohol use in young adulthood (mean age 25) was predicted by an older sibling’s use when they were in emerging adulthood. This was particularly true when the siblings were close in age. 3.1.9. Parental psychopathology Chassin et al. (2002) noted that the association between parent antisocial personality and offspring binge drinking at age 20 is stronger for female young adults than for males. This association was reduced when controlling for the interaction between offspring behavioral undercontrol and parenting practices (OR prior to control for interaction 3.2, after control for interaction 1.8-2.4) (King & Chassin, 2004). Buu et al. (2009) found that parental depression is predictive of young adult nicotine use disorders. Similarly, Alati et al. (2005) found a link between maternal depression during an offspring’s adolescent years and increased risk of experiencing an alcohol use disorder during young adulthood (OR 1.37 for males, not statistically significant for females). However the association between parental depression and young adult substance use may be stronger in certain subpopulations. Dissertation research by Caywood (2007) suggested that parental depression predicts greater offspring alcohol use only among subpopulation of youth experiencing childhood behavioral problems. Further research is necessary to explore other such moderating effects. 3.1.10. Neighborhood instability Hawkins et al.’s (1992) review also included a contextual factor called “neighborhood disorganization” as a risk factor for substance use. The reviewed research linked neighborhood factors such as population density, physical neighborhood deterioration, and low attachment to neighborhoods to juvenile crime and illegal drug trafficking (Fagan, 1988; Hawkins et al., 1992; Herting & Guest, 1985; Murray, 1983; Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985). While neighborhood disadvantage has also been linked to adverse adult substance use outcomes such as death due to drug use (Hannon & Cuddy, 2006), few studies have focused on young adult substance use outcomes specifically. Buu et al. (2009) provided an exception by examining the link between neighborhood disorganization and young adult substance use problems. Their research suggests that childhood neighborhood A.L. Stone et al. / Addictive Behaviors 37 (2012) 747-775 755 instability may pose a risk for young adult alcohol, nicotine, and marijuana use disorders. 3.2. Contextual risk factors Society and culture play a crucial role

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."